I believe that eliminating tobacco rights would create a sharp decline in the economy as a whole. The buying, selling, and making of tobacco all support a healthy economy, and one of the points that I would like to stress as a main argument is:

- The tobacco industry employs at least 200,000 people considering only the factory workers and farmers. The tobacco industry could also be seen as helping the cotton industry flourish considering that every cigarette includes a cotton filter. I'm not saying that the cotton industry is still alive as a direct result of cigarette filters, I'm simply asking you to take these into account when you think of jobs that the tobacco industry helps create, indirectly.

I would like to see my opponents main points before stressing anymore of mine.

*Keep in mind that this is not my only argument.

I would like to thank my opponent for taking me up on this debate and everybody for taking the time to read this debate.

Hello, Pro, and thank you for this debate. (READ THE BOTTOM PARENTHESIS IMMEDIATELY AFTER THIS!!!)

I will first contend with my opponents points and then move to affirm my own.

=Rebuttals=

1. "The buying, selling, and making of tobacco all support a healthy economy". However, does tobacco make healthy people? Does it have any positive direct benifets? No. In fact, I will use you as my first source: "There are 435,000 tobacco related deaths each year." I would imagine even more are hospitalized and leech the hospitals for their eventual deaths because they are too ill to work. This pushes our healthcare deficit and could lower the quality of healthcare, for this is a major issue in the Whitehouse.

2. "The tobacco industry employs at least 200,000 people considering only the factory workers and farmers." While the employment itself is a good thing, the effects of tobacco and it's toll on health and healthcare is far more at a disadvantage

3. "The tobacco industry could also be seen as helping the cotton industry flourish considering that every cigarette includes a cotton filter." It could. However, it's aid is miniscule when in comparison to other industries, like the clothing industry. There are more than 1,000 ways to use cotton (http://news.google.com...), and this would not matter too much in that aspect.

4. "I'm simply asking you to take these into account when you think of jobs that the tobacco industry helps create, indirectly.
I have, my friend. I am now asking you to take into account the DIRECT causes of still maintaing tobacco. Deaths, hospitalization,- and other things. The hospitilization alone makes them a leech on society, since they are unable to work in sever conditions and the hospitals are required to treat them if their health is directly in danger. The healthcare deficet is already a major issue in the Whitehouse.

=Contentions=

1. Eliminating tobacco rights is in America's best interest, because it would aid greatly in the healthcare deficit.
Thusly, it would improve the economy through healtcare and would help Obama be more at ease with the current issues, which could decrease his stress levels and increase his work preformance, since healthcare is already a big issue on Capital Hill. (http://www.healthquoteinsider.com...)

With this, I strongly urge you to vote for Itsallovernow

((NOTE: My opponet took the wrong side to support. I will give him the benifet of the doubt. From now on, my opponent is CON and I am PRO.))

*I actually did take the right side in the debate. It may seem wrong, but I took the right side. I am supporting the fact that, "Eliminating tobacco rights is not in America's best interest."

I am going to now counter each of the Con's arguments in reverse order.

4. "The healthcare deficet is already a major issue in the Whitehouse."

There is no "health care deficit".

3. "It could. However, it's aid is miniscule when in comparison to other industries, like the clothing industry."

This was not one of my MAIN arguments, so I accept the fact that the cotton industry wouldn't be DRASTICALLY affected by the tobacco industry, but it is a pro.

2. "While the employment itself is a good thing, the effects of tobacco and it's toll on health and healthcare is far more at a disadvantage"

I note that you DO, in fact, accept the fact that the employment benefits are present. But you also say that "it's toll on health and health care is far more at a disadvantage" I'm sure I know what you mean, but the grammatical error could open it up to mean more than one thing. What I think you mean is that the tobacco industry is bad for health care as a whole. The main point I would like to note here is that, although tobacco may kill people, non-tobacco users tend to live longer and as a result, end up having more health problems that would cause them to go to the doctor. In conclusion, tobacco users actually have LESS health problems than non-tobacco users.

1. "I would imagine even more are hospitalized and leech the hospitals for their eventual deaths because they are too ill to work. This pushes our healthcare deficit and could lower the quality of healthcare, for this is a major issue in the Whitehouse."

I am going to refer back to my last point. Contrary to popular belief, non-tobacco users tend to live longer and incur more health problems than tobacco users.

I don't feel the need to post any new arguments, as my main argument proves sufficient. Pro ballot. :)

(Heh, I admitted in the "Comments" tab that I was wrong. That's why I dislike using negatives (not) in a resolution, but that's getting off the point. I apologize for the confusion.)

=Rebuttals=
4. "There is no "health care deficit""
Allow me to rephrase that then: The healthcare industry is losing a considerable amount of money because of the negative effects of tobacco, despite campaigns to warn the public. People are hospitalized with cancer, emphasemza, and some sever asphyxiations. When they die, sometimes they aren't paid (actually, a good amount of the time they aren't).

3. "This was not one of my MAIN arguments, so I accept the fact that the cotton industry wouldn't be DRASTICALLY affected by the tobacco industry, but it is a pro." My opponent concedes to my point. No further argumentation on cotton nessicary.

2. "The main point I would like to note here is that, although tobacco may kill people, non-tobacco users tend to live longer and as a result, end up having more health problems that would cause them to go to the doctor. In conclusion, tobacco users actually have LESS health problems than non-tobacco users." (Note: There were no gramatical errors, just, I suppose, multiple interpretations.) My opponent cannot prove, in every case, that there will be more health problems. Even so, chances are that the health problems posed won't be as life-threatening as cancer or as expensive as months or even years of state-of-the-art radiation therapy or other expensive methods for an extended period of time. (Yes, I know that employment is benefical, even if it invovles mercenaries to kingpens, but that doesn't automatically make it a good thing when there are so many bad things about it.)

1. "I am going to refer back to my last point. Contrary to popular belief, non-tobacco users tend to live longer and incur more health problems than tobacco users."
I now ask my opponent to present a source and proof of this, if it is, in fact, on the contrary. If my opponent assumes it pertains to the nature of "common sense", then he must assume that I have none. Therefore, he cannot blame me for requesting a valid source.

I also do not feel the need to post more arguements, as long as Pro and I continue to rebut effectively.

4. "The healthcare industry is losing a considerable amount of money because of the negative effects of tobacco, despite campaigns to warn the public. People are hospitalized with cancer, emphasemza, and some sever asphyxiations. When they die, sometimes they aren't paid (actually, a good amount of the time they aren't)."

First, I would like to ask who you are referring to not being paid? I'm not sure if I'm the only one off put by this, but I'm a little confused. Second, again, the healthcare industry ACTUALLY doesn't spend as much money on tobacco users as anticipated, as tobacco users will have less health related problems, possibly only one. Tobacco also releases Carbon Monoxide into the bloodstream while smoking. (Carbon Monoxide actually prevents blood clots which cause heart attacks.) (http://www.ilefttobacco.com...)

3. The argument is dead. I still do wish for the voters to know that it is a rather small plus, but with all of the cigarettes being produced, if you stopped producing all of them, that it would have a HUGE impact on the cotton industry. Possibly more than you would think of at first glance.

2. When most people think of cancers that tobacco users incur, they think lung cancer. Well take a minute and overview this. (http://www.journaloftheoretics.com...) A lot of diseases are blamed on cigarettes and tobacco, while a lot of the cons of tobacco can also be blamed on alcohol.

1. "I now ask my opponent to present a source and proof of this, if it is, in fact, on the contrary. If my opponent assumes it pertains to the nature of "common sense", then he must assume that I have none. Therefore, he cannot blame me for requesting a valid source."

The life expectancy of the average American is 78 years. Tobacco cuts from 10 - 15 years off of that. In those 10 - 15 years, most people incur more severe asthma problems, memory loss, more severe vision problems, liver problems, kidney problems, arthritis problems, and many more.

I would also like to thank my opponent, for I learned things I didn't know either, and also look forward to debating again (honestly, I do). (Medicar not being paid, by the way.)

=Rebuttals=

4. "Second, again, the healthcare industry ACTUALLY doesn't spend as much money on tobacco users as anticipated"
Well, then, we must recognized what is anticipated and discover if in your statement the cost is higher or lower and who is the anticipator. Cigarette smoking adds BILLION to Medicare spending, (according to http://www.dmoz.org...), they cause more time off work and a lower productivity, and they also say that, in their conclusion, health care for debilities from smoking is expensive. Smoking likely increases overall lifetime health care costs. My opponents OWN SOURCE http://seniorhealth.about.com......, says. "Those who engage in exercise and activity have fewer hospitalizations and have a lower risk of dying."

3. "The argument is dead." It was, until you stated: "that it would have a HUGE impact on the cotton industry". However, I'm going to disreguard this since you admittedly conceded and weakened your case.

1. It seems as though my opponent is advocating the deaths that tobacco imposes and the expensive costs to postpone immenint death. In light of this, I would like to say that asthema is fairly easily regulated and not very expensive, save for very few asthma attacks, which still aren't expensive. Memory loss is not nessicarly a hospitiliazed trait. The others are just natural traits of death. However, having people smoke (Especially since most start at a young age), would have such an impact on the economy due to deaths of the elderly and the young, resulting in a substandarded population, which is bad. As for healthcare costs, people will grow old and die naturally, whereas young ones would lay in hospitals with no funds to support themselves and the hospitals unable to give them "the boot".

=Notes=
I don't feel www.aoa.org is appurtenent (supportive) of my opponents case. It merely states that vision loss occurs when old and you should get checkups.

I don't feel that "www.psycheservices.ps..." is appurtenent to my opponents case either. It states, and I quote: "This study examined the relationship between age at first gambling experience and severity of gambling and related problems among older adult problem gamblers." I hope my opponent isn't just listing sources to get a "cheap" vote.

Yeah, I know. Reduces competition for employment, raising threats of labor unions. The only negative thing about deaths is that they can no longer contribute to taxes (save for funeral costs and the like).

Yeah. But I don't know all of those people that voted 6's and 7's. I only know one. And on the last argument you had, the number "1." one. You say that death is bad for the economy, it isn't. It is especially good for the churches and such, because we have to buy coffins, tombstones, funeral service costs, etc.